Categories: Israel
By Jeffry V. Mallow, Phd.

I oppose most Israeli settlements in the West Bank. They are unnecessary, they drain resources from Israel proper, they compromise Israel’s security, they are a provocation to the Palestinians, they provide fodder for Arab and Muslim extremists and their European and American fellow travelers.

These are good reasons for opposing settlements. But of late I am hearing other reasons which are not so good; in fact, which are more than a little troubling. They are coming from Ameinu’s allies within the Zionist peace camp. They smack of conspiracy theory and they suggest a double standard for the Jewish state. They rely for their justification on the notion of “territorial integrity.”

The claims are twofold:

1) The maintaining of large settlements deep in the West Bank precludes the development of a viable Palestinian state, by splitting the northern and southern West Bank from each other. The prime example is Ariel, the largest settlement stretching a substantial distance into the West Bank.

2) The connecting of settlements to Jerusalem will cut off its resident Palestinians from the rest of the West Bank. The prime example is the connecting of Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem, through development of the area known as E1.

So I got out my maps, my ruler, and (advancing age!) my magnifying glass. It looks to me as if Ariel is about 35 kilometers (21 miles) from the eastern border of the West Bank, the Jordan River. That’s almost twice the width of the narrowest part of pre-1967 Israel, 20 kilometers (12 miles) east of Herzliyah. Thus, even if a maximalist Ehud Olmert were to decide to keep Ariel, the width of the Palestinian West Bank would still be substantially greater than the width of pre-1967 Israel at its narrowest point.

The logic of the territorial integrity argument then reduces to one of two premises:

1) Jews are somehow capable of maintaining a narrower contiguous state than Palestinians.

2) Jews are obliged to live in danger of having their state cut in half, while Palestinians must be protected from that eventuality.

Stated this way, the territorial integrity argument clearly lacks, well, integrity. Apparently sensing the problem, some of its proponents have attempted to draw a distinction between “contiguity of land” and “contiguity of society.” Their argument is that, unlike the narrow waist of Israel, the narrowest region of the West Bank is sparsely populated; in effect, a no-man’s land splitting the northern and southern West Bank.

This is a distinction without a difference. Tel Aviv was once a sand dune. It is the job of any nation to choose where to make the desert bloom. Why exempt Palestine? In fact, by their own logic, the proponents of territorial integrity should insist that the narrowest parts of Palestine be rapidly populated, so that Palestinians may be at the same risk as Israelis. Similarly, those who base their argument for removal of Ariel on territorial integrity should also argue for extending the border of Israel to more than twice its pre-1967 distance from Herzliyah.

As regards the contiguity of Ma’aleh Adumim with Jerusalem vs. the contiguity of Arab Jerusalem with the West Bank, a look at the map of the proposed E1 shows that it is slated to connect northeast Jerusalem with Ma’aleh Adumim. Southeast Jerusalem would remain attached to the West Bank. We could argue that more roads and infrastructure should be built to enhance that contiguity. We should certainly oppose any encroachments south of E1. (We should also support all efforts to end suicide attacks, so that the security fence/wall can be eventually dismantled.) But we cannot claim that connecting the top half of the city’s border to Ma’aleh Adumim jeopardizes access of the bottom half to Palestine.

So maybe the Prime Minister and the government of Israel have conspired on some secret plan to counter the wishes of the majority of their electorate and make a viable Palestinian state impossible. But the maps certainly don’t reveal it.

Integrity means sticking to the right arguments for relinquishing territory. Abandoning Ariel is a good idea, for all the reasons I listed at the beginning of this essay, but not because it cuts the West Bank in half. Abandoning Ma’aleh Adumim might also be a good idea, but connecting it to Jerusalem doesn’t separate the city’s Arabs from their West Bank brethren.

Integrity also means supporting Israeli sovereignty in some of those places others call settlements. Every new or rebuilt neighborhood in Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter with the Western Wall, is considered by much of the world to be a settlement. Putting these on the table would be an opening negotiating position– with Hamas. No one (at least no one with integrity) proposes doing so. Integrity means calling for mutual territorial compromise, while avoiding positions that demand of one side what is not demanded of the other. Integrity means acknowledging the truth of Amos Oz’s metaphor: that it is better to be in a Chekhov play, where everyone comes away a little unhappy but alive, than to be in Hamlet, where everyone defends unshakable principle and the stage is littered with corpses.

About Jeffry V. Mallow Ph. D., Immediate Past President

Jeffry V. Mallow is Emeritus Professor of Physics at Loyola University Chicago. He does research on science education and on quantum physics. He is a member of the Forward Association and honorary chair of the Chicago YIVO Society. His articles on Jewish themes have appeared in numerous publications.  He is the author of Zionist Diarist and Other Polemics. He is also a standup Jewish comic.
This entry was posted in Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Integrity

  1. he blog was how do i say it… relevant, finally something that helped me. Thanks

  2. Tasha Silman says:

    This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it.

  3. Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!

  4. marketing says:

    Very interesting details you have remarked, thanks for putting up. “The surest way to get rid of a bore is to lend money to him.” by Paul Louis Courier.

  5. After study a few of the weblog posts in your web site now, and I truly like your manner of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site listing and will likely be checking back soon. Pls take a look at my website as well and let me know what you think.

  6. Great amazing things here. I am very satisfied to look your post. Thank you a lot and i’m taking a look forward to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?

  7. I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the structure of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two pictures. Maybe you could space it out better?